Genealogy Chat

My son was born in 1961 in a London hospital where the Registrar came round once a week to register the new babies. (Very useful as the hospital covered a large area and I lived a long way from the Registry Office). None of the fathers was present and I don't remember any questions about whether I was or wasn't married.

At the opposite end of the scale, my younger son was born in Ghana and was registered locally, but also, in order to get him a British Birth Certificate, my husband had to drive 100 miles to the British High Commission in Accra to register the birth.

Incidentally, in England and Wales the birth is registered where it occurs, sometimes a long way from the home address, but in Scotland the parents can register at the home address if they wish.

As far as i am aware you cannot amended a birth cert, ( with or without a DNA test)

You can re-register a birth but i think only the parents can have this done

how sure are you that you have all the correct info? to suggest that the original info is false

Do you have the original cert or are you going off the info on the index?

The reason i ask is because your opening post stated

a relative sending for their full birth cert, it has come to light that false information regarding his fathers surname and his mothers maiden name were given when his birth was registered in the 70's.

and
It has also come to light that the same false info was given when a baby was born & died, to the same parents, the year before the his birth was registered

This leads me to think the cert was ordered using the GRO reference and not the actual birth details? So it has the potential to be the wrong cert

Roy

Thank you all for your comments and advice. It is quite a close family member this has happened to. That person is considering having their birth cert/reg amended.
Regards, Dawn

no my mother was never married on the certif mothers name was in her maiden name/ the name i was given what i dont unstand is how you can do that if they were never married he was not present at the registration and defiantly not my father lets say an impossibility.... lol thanks

Well if the mum hadn't married the dad but had an ex hubby then her surname would still be the former husbands surname.
ie Jane married MR Jones so she then was Jane Jones, she divorced or was widowed but her name would still be Jane Jones.

She has a baby with Mr Smith but they weren't married . she would register the baby as Jones ,cos that was still her surname but the cert would show her maiden name. IF Mr Mr Smith attended the birth registration then his name would go on the birth cert as Dad, IN theory the child could be known as Jones or Smith. Buying the cert under either surname would get the same cert.

So its not lies but how registrations were and are done.

Our grandson has children by partners he wasn't married too and the children show under both surnames cos he was there and acknowledged he was the father and is named on the certs as dad.

my certif has a mans name on as my father but he is clearly not i have since found my father who passed in 2000 the person name on the certif was not married or present at the time of registration to have the name removed i have to have a dna test to prove he is not the father but cant put other person on a father as he is dead...... :-(

My uncle (Mum's younger brother) was the informant of his mother's death. He gave the wrong home address, wrong employment........... and he lived with her!

:-S

Scozzie


it's the law in England and Wales as well .........


................ if a woman is married and has a baby, then her husband is officially the father, unless the other man turns up at the registrar and admits to being the father AND agrees to his name being on the registry.


The longest time between death of a husband and a baby bearing his name that I've seen was 10 years!!


And, there were 3 or 4 babies in the intervening years as well :-D




sylvia

I have Scottish birth entries, children born well over 9 months after the listed father died............ That was the law

I have a few on my tree who went by a different name to what was on birth certificate - sometimes it's a baptism name, sometimes (very common in Scotland) something totally different (eg my gg granny, couldn't fine Helen anywhere, then found out her birth name was Jean).

Then there are the children who grew up thinking their grandparents were their parents.... and gave grandparents names as parents on marriage documents.

Oh what a tangled web!

Rollo


a birth can be re-registered .............. but the original certificate itself will not be altered to reflect the change, and that is what I meant.


I think that the situation where a woman retains her maiden name after marriage will become much more common! It is already not "rare" over here.




Kellie ......


that is not quite correct. Births can be re-registered by the parents, but not so far as I know by the child.



So far as I know, the father must always be present, or provide a letter acknowledging that he is the father of the child, in all cases where he is not married to the mother. And that applies even today.



In fact, we do not know whether Dawn is directly involved or not!




sylvia

It may be worth adding that a birth certificate showing John Doe as father, Mary Doe nee Jones as mother for child Ed Doe does not, in England & Wales, is not evidence that the parents were in fact married. All it says is that Mary Doe had chosen to use the name Doe and that the father was the informant for the birth cert. Conversely some women have for various reasons continued using their maiden name after marriage.

Both of these situations are uncommon but not that much.

if you were born in the 60s did the father have to be present to have his name on the birth certificate

Also to a ? my daughter has 2 birth certificates one in my maiden name and then one in her fathers name when his name was added a few months later

A birth can be re registered years after the original one.
For instance here is a real case (1980s), England.

"A" married, say, Mary with whom he had some kids.
Mary then has affair with "B" and children by him but registered to surname of "A"
Mary then divorces and marries "B"with whom she has more children. All of her children move in with Mary and "B".
Mary and "B" then re-register the children she had by "B" but given A's surname some years after their birth. They now have the surname of B.

Thus there are two birth registrations for the same person. This is perfectly legal and the law makes available this rereg procedure. The procedure is also often used when the natural father decides to have the relationship recognised on the register. Nobody is lying.

Any passport etc will be based on the 2nd entry. The GRO have a system for "marking" the first entry so that it cannot be used for such purposes. I am not sure whether it will issue copy cert for the 1st reg either, even though the reg entry is there. Anybody know ?

For genealogy research this sort of thing will show up if you do a search based on first names, dates and mother's surname leaving out the surname of the search object.

The children may or may not know of the changes. In the above case they were well aware.

fwiw one of my relatives was a rural midwife during the 1950s. She reckoned that about 1 in 3 of the children were fathered by someone other than the father named on the birth cert.

.

My father registered my birth.

If the mother registers the birth and is not married to the father, he must be present, or provide a written testimony of his being the child's father, for his name to be on the cert.

Of course, if the unmarried mother lies and says she is married to the father, the registration is accepted on her info alone, and the father is named on the cert.

I think it can within a period of six months. The last column is for name changes after registration.

Really....
No matter what country is it up to the 'relative' to persue this...
YOu cannot pursue anything as you are NOT the person named....

Kellie

AND


the birth certificates cannot be changed.

patchem - could you please give the genuki URL that has the incorrect info.


EDIT - thanks for URL - I've taken your advice and pointed out their error and a potential rewording.

mgnv,
Contact genuki and tell them.

patchem - it's not true you get 42 days to rego a birth in the UK - it's only 21 days in Scotland (but 42 days elsewhere).